(16-11-2012 08:07 AM)Logica Humano Wrote: Tell me, honey buns. Who runs a corporation? Who funds a corporation? What is a corporation? If people really cared about companies polluting our precious water supplies, consumers could easily boycott. That's the wonders about capitalism. You can choose to go with the other guy, if you think it is really worth it.

Capitalist dogma? I am talking about the basics of human nature here.

hey stupid, the people do decide to get rid of corporations and when they do, they get invaded, sanctioned, bombed, coup attempts etc etc.

Is your dumb fucking ass saying on this forum that the people who live in poverty choose to live in poverty? Are you really saying that dumb shit?

Tell me why labor reforms were developed following the Gilded Age then? There is almost no difference, the only the only one being asshats like you get instant information from all over the globe. *Note, I didn't say quality information.

Again with the strawmans, I and I. You are pathetic. I said the middle and lower classes can control what a company does if enough of them really cared.

(16-11-2012 03:21 PM)I and I Wrote: hey stupid, the people do decide to get rid of corporations and when they do, they get invaded, sanctioned, bombed, coup attempts etc etc.

Is your dumb fucking ass saying on this forum that the people who live in poverty choose to live in poverty? Are you really saying that dumb shit?

Tell me why labor reforms were developed following the Gilded Age then? There is almost no difference, the only the only one being asshats like you get instant information from all over the globe. *Note, I didn't say quality information.

Again with the strawmans, I and I. You are pathetic. I said the middle and lower classes can control what a company does if enough of them really cared.

what labor reforms are you referring to? Labor reforms that were prompted by the ruling class or the ones prompted by organized labor?

(17-11-2012 07:58 PM)Logica Humano Wrote: Tell me why labor reforms were developed following the Gilded Age then? There is almost no difference, the only the only one being asshats like you get instant information from all over the globe. *Note, I didn't say quality information.

Again with the strawmans, I and I. You are pathetic. I said the middle and lower classes can control what a company does if enough of them really cared.

what labor reforms are you referring to? Labor reforms that were prompted by the ruling class or the ones prompted by organized labor?

From the Knights of Labor to the AFL-CIO, the middle and lower class have had to always unite to get their voices heard, or to get anything remotely useful done.

Yeah, becuase there aren't MILLIONS of people in communist china starving to death in the rice fields, or the slave labor sweat shops. North Korea is doing a really REALLY good job at feeding their people too. I mean, I would much rather go to North Korea than South Korea, it is no question.

Face it, capitalism isn't perfect. Smart people will always find ways to exploit the system. But in capitalism, at least the power and wealth is spread around more than just the top people in the party. The poor in America are far better off here than they are in North Korea, China, and just about any country in Africa. There is a reason for that... and its free market capitalism that creates competition between businesses that increase quality and decrease prices... How many countries have Poor people who are also obese? (in the past poor people didn't eat anything....and its still like that in the underdeveloped world.)

(18-11-2012 06:51 PM)Styrofoam02 Wrote: Yeah, becuase there aren't MILLIONS of people in communist china starving to death in the rice fields, or the slave labor sweat shops. North Korea is doing a really REALLY good job at feeding their people too. I mean, I would much rather go to North Korea than South Korea, it is no question.

Face it, capitalism isn't perfect. Smart people will always find ways to exploit the system. But in capitalism, at least the power and wealth is spread around more than just the top people in the party. The poor in America are far better off here than they are in North Korea, China, and just about any country in Africa. There is a reason for that... and its free market capitalism that creates competition between businesses that increase quality and decrease prices... How many countries have Poor people who are also obese? (in the past poor people didn't eat anything....and its still like that in the underdeveloped world.)

So venezuela ecuador and the other countries in latin america that VOTED COMMUNISTS INTO POWER are doing much better now than before and spreading wealth around much better than before.

China is definitely much better off now than before it was communist, so was the Soviet Union.

Can someone explain to me why capitalist nations have had to spend billions of dollars on military bases and military excursions and propping up dictators maintain capitalism while communist countries have not had to do so. If capitalism is so popular why does it have to be forced on people?

(18-11-2012 06:51 PM)Styrofoam02 Wrote: Yeah, becuase there aren't MILLIONS of people in communist china starving to death in the rice fields, or the slave labor sweat shops. North Korea is doing a really REALLY good job at feeding their people too. I mean, I would much rather go to North Korea than South Korea, it is no question.

Face it, capitalism isn't perfect. Smart people will always find ways to exploit the system. But in capitalism, at least the power and wealth is spread around more than just the top people in the party. The poor in America are far better off here than they are in North Korea, China, and just about any country in Africa. There is a reason for that... and its free market capitalism that creates competition between businesses that increase quality and decrease prices... How many countries have Poor people who are also obese? (in the past poor people didn't eat anything....and its still like that in the underdeveloped world.)

Bad things happening to people under a communist regime? Nah, capitalist propaganda obviously, nothing can go wrong in a perfect system.

(18-11-2012 06:51 PM)Styrofoam02 Wrote: Yeah, becuase there aren't MILLIONS of people in communist china starving to death in the rice fields, or the slave labor sweat shops. North Korea is doing a really REALLY good job at feeding their people too. I mean, I would much rather go to North Korea than South Korea, it is no question.

Face it, capitalism isn't perfect. Smart people will always find ways to exploit the system. But in capitalism, at least the power and wealth is spread around more than just the top people in the party. The poor in America are far better off here than they are in North Korea, China, and just about any country in Africa. There is a reason for that... and its free market capitalism that creates competition between businesses that increase quality and decrease prices... How many countries have Poor people who are also obese? (in the past poor people didn't eat anything....and its still like that in the underdeveloped world.)

So venezuela ecuador and the other countries in latin america that VOTED COMMUNISTS INTO POWER are doing much better now than before and spreading wealth around much better than before.

China is definitely much better off now than before it was communist, so was the Soviet Union.

Can someone explain to me why capitalist nations have had to spend billions of dollars on military bases and military excursions and propping up dictators maintain capitalism while communist countries have not had to do so. If capitalism is so popular why does it have to be forced on people?

sorry communists in latin america? no man, you're wrong, latin american presidents aren't communists, they're not neo-liberalists either and they stand against foreign powers that's all. They do have socialist tendencies but that's about it.
Chavez has a very communist discourse, but he acts very capitalistic about Venezuelan oil, and that's the usual down here today.

You can look at East Berlin and compare it to West Berlin and just see which side was better off. The wall wasn't built to keep people out, it was built to keep people IN....

You're dangerously close to using the same arguments that homeopaths use. "Think of how bad they would be without their communist regimes" but this is... just silly. China and Russia both were basically feudal, Kings, lords, serfs. This is not a western democracy with a free market, and yet you imply that this was the case before the revolutions there. And while they may be better off now than under the original Chinese Emperors... that doesn't mean that this is the clear winner. Modern China, even though it looks great on the eastern shores, is full of rampant poverty. Just go to western regions of China if you want to see the real picture. Rule of Law is sorely absent in China; organ harvesting, Internet Censorship and human rights abuses are the order of the day. It is said that there is little change other than the fact that Emperor has been replaced by Communist Party of China, people being slaves to Communist Party.

(18-11-2012 07:05 PM)I and I Wrote: So venezuela ecuador and the other countries in latin america that VOTED COMMUNISTS INTO POWER are doing much better now than before and spreading wealth around much better than before.

China is definitely much better off now than before it was communist, so was the Soviet Union.

Can someone explain to me why capitalist nations have had to spend billions of dollars on military bases and military excursions and propping up dictators maintain capitalism while communist countries have not had to do so. If capitalism is so popular why does it have to be forced on people?

sorry communists in latin america? no man, you're wrong, latin american presidents aren't communists, they're not neo-liberalists either and they stand against foreign powers that's all. They do have socialist tendencies but that's about it.
Chavez has a very communist discourse, but he acts very capitalistic about Venezuelan oil, and that's the usual down here today.

So the countries that are well off and are self proclaimed communist/socialist, you dismiss their success simply by saying they aren't real communist. They aren't communist to who? you?

Still waiting on a response about the popularly elected communists that were overthrown by capitalist countries. Explain that doozy.

I just watched a doc about Dole being sued for using a known harmful chemical on it's banans and contaminating their workers. And now I am watching a doc about how the cocacola company had labor union leaders assasinated in columbia. All this talk of capitalism being the glory hole of freedom and prosperity is a total joke.

(18-11-2012 07:10 PM)nach_in Wrote: sorry communists in latin america? no man, you're wrong, latin american presidents aren't communists, they're not neo-liberalists either and they stand against foreign powers that's all. They do have socialist tendencies but that's about it.
Chavez has a very communist discourse, but he acts very capitalistic about Venezuelan oil, and that's the usual down here today.

So the countries that are well off and are self proclaimed communist/socialist, you dismiss their success simply by saying they aren't real communist. They aren't communist to who? you?

Still waiting on a response about the popularly elected communists that were overthrown by capitalist countries. Explain that doozy.

I just watched a doc about Dole being sued for using a known harmful chemical on it's banans and contaminating their workers. And now I am watching a doc about how the cocacola company had labor union leaders assasinated in columbia. All this talk of capitalism being the glory hole of freedom and prosperity is a total joke.

keep the jokes coming.

They aren't communists because they don't follow the communist principles, they act very capitalist in their actions.
Some countries are indeed communist and that's fine, I never said communism is useless, in my opinion is not the best system, but is not garbage.

And capitalism is just as bad with another flavour. Both are wrong, now do you have something better than both?